Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT
 

So Yahtzee is totally on board with Bioware f**king up their story George Lucas style? He does know both JarJar and "Star Killer" also fall under that impenetrable umbrella of 'Well it's the story the creator wanted', right?

Once again an uninvested internet personality completley misses the point. Ignoring the various promises blatently broken from the developers, the hamfisted and cliche execution of the ending and the misrepresentation of the various themes presented throughout the series, a damn game with damn multiple paths should damn well have multiple damn endings! DAMN!

To put thing in perspective, imagine if Silent Hill 2 only had one ending in which it was reveiled that a wizard created the town in order to keep people from driving themselves insane by driving them insane, and James automatically convinces him to destroy the town forever and run away with him. Then you get to pick the flavor of ice cream they get to celebrate. That's pretty much what ME3's ending was to someone invested.

I won't be playing ME3. The Mass Effect series has always felt bland to me. And now, knowing how ti all ends, I have no reason to continue.

I think what is most disappointing though is that the ending isn't even original. Maybe some of you have heard of FreeSpace? In the last mission you and a squad of bombers go on a suicide mission and fight through hyperspace to stop the massive death-ship from reaching Earth and culminating in the destruction of said death-ship AND the jump nodes that link back to Earth. It ends and you're more of less certain the explosion kills everyone and the epilogue states how Earth is now unreachable - which strands both humans and Vasudans (and probably a few Shivans too) there with no way to return back home.

So, yeah. Too bad about that 'epic' ending.

wintercoat:
Yes, it would set a precedent because this has never happened before, has it? This will most assuredly be the first time ever that an artist has changed their work due to fan pressure. Nope, this has never happened before and everything is on the line now!

I know right? It's not like older, more respected mediums of art have had to do this

*cough* DOYLE *cough*

Also, painters don't -PATCH THEIR WORK-

Yahtzee and I seem to have a completely different understanding of ME theme. I always thought it was quite clear "The inevitable can be averted, the cycle can be broken". The sacrifice of the Protheans, unexpected evolution of the Keepers and the killing of Sovereign in the first game all hammer that point. The ending is so bad because it ignores that.

Okay not agreeing with the premise of different endings is a lot more reasonable than saying "You're just upset because it's over". The REAL fanboys were the ones gushing over the game and belittling the rest of us about with comparisons to the Mona Lisa's smile being "flat"

And hell maybe we're mad BECAUSE it all came down to that one final decision? Instead of building of off all the choices we had previously made?

TsunamiWombat:

Yes. I am certain it is them missing the point and not myself. Because they are making assumptions about my views. I am not making assumptions about theirs. Ergo, the 'point' is what my views are. I believe I know those better then they do.

People are free to love the endings. I don't fault them for it. I don't mind depressing endings - I loved the ending to Dead Island where [spoilers] that nice mechanics girl gets raped, berated, becomes manic depressive then dies after ceasing to care about her life[/spoiler] simply because it was so dark and shocking in the games industry where we only seem to get happy endings. But that ending was fitting for the genre of that game, fitting for the story told, and fitting for the characters involved. Mass Effect 3's endings was none of these things, just a lazy Deus Ex Machina as it is literally defined in the last 10 minutes.

Respect is a two way street. If you want respect for your work, respect my intelligence. I don't think I have a -right- to change the gamings end, I would -like- to. Bioware has every right to ignore the shit out of me and complainers like me and more power to them as a business and an artist. I have every right not to purchase their products in the future out of disatisfaction, seek a refund (as many did in the initial 2 weeks, and recieved them I might add, even from Origin), and to pressure my friends and peers not to buy their games. Yet when I exercise my rights, I'm "immature" and "spiteful" whereas Bioware is "artistic" when they exercise theirs.

I don't think any of these people writing about the controversy is saying you don't have a right to not like the ending, to complain about it, to never buy Bioware games again, etc. No one is telling you what to think about the game or the ending.

The problem is that some fans feel that Bioware "owes" them a better ending or some such, and try to demand a new ending from them. This is what most journalists are talking against, not the fact of not liking the ending.

So yes, you have the right of doing everything you said, no problem, and I don't see anyone talking against this.

Personally, I don't love the ending but I don't mind it so much. It was a workable idea badly executed, and it feels rushed for sure. But I've seen bad endings before, and will buy future Bioware games if they're good. The fact that your opinion is different is no problem for me.

The V Man:
I won't be playing ME3. The Mass Effect series has always felt bland to me. And now, knowing how ti all ends, I have no reason to continue.

I think what is most disappointing though is that the ending isn't even original. Maybe some of you have heard of FreeSpace? In the last mission you and a squad of bombers go on a suicide mission and fight through hyperspace to stop the massive death-ship from reaching Earth and culminating in the destruction of said death-ship AND the jump nodes that link back to Earth. It ends and you're more of less certain the explosion kills everyone and the epilogue states how Earth is now unreachable - which strands both humans and Vasudans (and probably a few Shivans too) there with no way to return back home.

So, yeah. Too bad about that 'epic' ending.

if you think THAT part is ripped off, you should see the endings for deus ex

Well, this was unexpected after the Endingtron 3000 rant.

370999:
Yahtzee and I seem to have a completely different understanding of ME theme. I always thought it was quite clear "The inevitable can be averted, the cycle can be broken". The sacrifice of the Protheans, unexpected evolution of the Keepers and the killing of Sovereign in the first game all hammer that point. The ending is so bad because it ignores that.

This.

This soooo much.

I hadn't really thought about it that way, but once you pointed that out the ending makes even less sense than before.

T3hSource:
It does make sense but the question brought up in the ending didn't have any build up to it.Yes it was tackled with the geth,but from that point on it's just referred by characters,not brought in as the major narrative focus.
And those grim ending you suggested would still be better than what we got.

Yeah, turns out if you spend the $10 to get Javik, that question suddenly has quite a bit of build up to it.

And that's just one scene. There are more.

wintercoat:
Yes, it would set a precedent because this has never happened before, has it? This will most assuredly be the first time ever that an artist has changed their work due to fan pressure. Nope, this has never happened before and everything is on the line now!

Pretty sure I see what you did there.

image

SonOfVoorhees:

But they need to grow up and stop acting like 3 year olds.

Ironic that you should direct this at the fans. Take note: I'm not attacking you. You have a right to your opinion however greatly it differs from mine, and it is no less valid because I disagree.

But I state calling the fans children for wanting something far better for something they've poured hours of their valuable time into is ironic because of Bioware's own reactions. They claim to be artists, yet see how they react to "criticism." They hide behind their PR and throw backhanded remarks towards the fans, and get incredibly insulted simply because people don't like what they have done.

You know who else can't take criticism? Stephenie Meyer. Bioware has become Stephenie Meyer.

I think a major reason why so many fans are upset over the whole thing is that Bioware said time and time again that we had as much investment in the Mass Effect universe as they did, and that we helped create it as much as they did. Then, when we try to voice our creative voice that, from their own statements, we should have in the matter, we are shut out, shut down, banned, silenced, and all together ignored by the company.

I don't have the time to speak on the writing, but I think we can all agree the writing came from nowhere. Catalyst doesn't fit into the universe, everything is rushed, Shepard is so far out of character he may as well not even be there, the reason for everything supposedly beyond the comprehension of humans doesn't even make sense... themes are abandoned, foreshadowing towards a completely different ending is utterly ignored, and everything the player has accomplished throughout three games is not only not addressed, but all for naught. Every single action you take amounts to nothing in the end.

I probably won't be reading this topic any further, I just felt the need to clarify on a few points I felt were being missed.

Hold the line.

An interesting thought just occurred to me... (probably not very original though)
They made a poorly executed ending to enrage people and gain more publicity(even bad publicity is publicity), then fix the ending(as in and charge for it... actually they don't even need to charge for it, if they fix it they'll be seen as heroes, while the complaining fans will be seen as the antagonists(though to be fair, many of them are) of sorts and that'll make even more people buy the game, and it probably will be remembered for a longer time as well, which means future games set in the ME universe will probably do better as well(as I said, even bad publicity is publicity).

I might be overthinking this here(and lending too much intellectual credit to those in charge of these decisions), though... still, an interesting thought.

Captcha thingy: alive and kicking
Amused me somewhat, though I don't know why.

Couldn't agree more with Yahtzee's point. The issue of investment is a good one- I loved the ending, but I've always been a casual Mass Effect fan at best. Nothing more to add from me, but someone else brought up an interesting point:

Yeah, I feel like most journalists / critcs are on a completely different wave length then us gamers.

This is something I've also noticed. The vast majority of game journalists and critics seem to either like the ending or be neutral toward it, whereas the majority of ME3 players hated it.

Why is that, I wonder? Maybe journalists are exposed to much more games and therefore don't get as invested in a particular franchise?

So Yahtzee is totally on board with Bioware f**king up their story George Lucas style? He does know both JarJar and "Star Killer" also fall under that impenetrable umbrella of 'Well it's the story the creator wanted', right?

Yeah, they do. And of course you have every right not to like Jar Jar Binks and wish fervently that the prequels had been better, but that doesn't change the fact that it's Lucas' story.

I don't respect this whole "you must respect the author's story the way he/she intended it to be." BS.
If a guy at E.A. had said "this ending won't do, write a new one." then that would have happened.
Where is your "respect the artist" then ?

Some good points there.

None of which will matter one iota since at this point everybody's so buried in their trenches nothing can get them out of it. It's just angry fanboys yelling at each other.

I hope it'll pass soon. Maybe then we can get back to discussing how many amazing things are in this game.

tautologico:

TsunamiWombat:

Yes. I am certain it is them missing the point and not myself. Because they are making assumptions about my views. I am not making assumptions about theirs. Ergo, the 'point' is what my views are. I believe I know those better then they do.

People are free to love the endings. I don't fault them for it. I don't mind depressing endings - I loved the ending to Dead Island where [spoilers] that nice mechanics girl gets raped, berated, becomes manic depressive then dies after ceasing to care about her life[/spoiler] simply because it was so dark and shocking in the games industry where we only seem to get happy endings. But that ending was fitting for the genre of that game, fitting for the story told, and fitting for the characters involved. Mass Effect 3's endings was none of these things, just a lazy Deus Ex Machina as it is literally defined in the last 10 minutes.

Respect is a two way street. If you want respect for your work, respect my intelligence. I don't think I have a -right- to change the gamings end, I would -like- to. Bioware has every right to ignore the shit out of me and complainers like me and more power to them as a business and an artist. I have every right not to purchase their products in the future out of disatisfaction, seek a refund (as many did in the initial 2 weeks, and recieved them I might add, even from Origin), and to pressure my friends and peers not to buy their games. Yet when I exercise my rights, I'm "immature" and "spiteful" whereas Bioware is "artistic" when they exercise theirs.

I don't think any of these people writing about the controversy is saying you don't have a right to not like the ending, to complain about it, to never buy Bioware games again, etc. No one is telling you what to think about the game or the ending.

The problem is that some fans feel that Bioware "owes" them a better ending or some such, and try to demand a new ending from them. This is what most journalists are talking against, not the fact of not liking the ending.

So yes, you have the right of doing everything you said, no problem, and I don't see anyone talking against this.

Personally, I don't love the ending but I don't mind it so much. It was a workable idea badly executed, and it feels rushed for sure. But I've seen bad endings before, and will buy future Bioware games if they're good. The fact that your opinion is different is no problem for me.

Reasonable debate on the internet what sorcery is this. I'm still angry someone give me a straw man to yell at - YOU THERE, IMAGINARY MAN WHO HATES KITTENS *marches off*

In all seriousness though, thank you. We can agree to disagree. But if you follow the narrative -alot- of 'journalists' are being incredibly insulting towards us.

The PR lies didn't factor into this argument at all D:

tautologico:

Dastardly:

On the other hand, this ending shows signs of being poorly handled. It is inconsistent with itself, and thus confuses the fans. Plenty want to accept it... but they're not sure how, because it's not clear what the ending did. And there's the question of choices mattering or not... to which I'd have to say you're right -- you can't craft an ending for every version of Shepard out there -- except that this ending doesn't really seem to follow any version of Shepard we've been shown.

Yes, it was badly executed, and feels rushed. But it's not the only bad ending out there. I think maybe Bioware could clarify the ending and make it work better, but not change the ending that's already out there (like it, or not). Trying to change it will disappoint a lot of people anyway.

Completely agreed. Folks aren't going to be happy with a "different" ending. All it will do is show people that they can get creators to change endings. That would be like judges letting criminals know they can get a reduced sentence if they start enough fights in prison. Very counter-productive.

But it's not outlandish for people to ask for the same ending, done better. In my personal opinion, here's what I felt was missing:

1. Peril. Where are the Reapers? The battle itself? They all but vanish once Shepard is on the Citadel. Splice in a few bits of the armies fighting the Reapers -- that gives weight and meaning to all of the allies you've spent so much time gaining. If you gained a lot, you can show them slowly gaining ground... if you went "bare minimum," show them barely holding out long enough for Shepard to make the choice. Either way, this "meanwhile" cinematic stuff wouldn't change the ending at all. Just the feel of it.

2. Epilogue. Who made it? Who didn't? Where does everyone go next? What are the consequences of the mass relays being destroyed, especially with so many fleets hanging out in Earth's orbit at the time? What are the greater consequences of the specific choice you made (like what do you do with the Reapers, or what happens now that all Synthetic life is gone, or now that all organic and synthetic life are joined, or whatever else)? Make the ending matter by showing how it matters

All of this can be accomplished through cinematics or text crawls, really. Some narration would be nice, of course. Alternately, it could be DLC packs that allow you to play as one or more of your old squadmates as they "hold the line" while you fight your way to the beam. Preferably at least some of the ending content would be free, though.

I just figured out the perfect analogy for ME3's ending. It's like if at the end of Romeo and Juliet before Juliet takes her own life, she uses a pandora's box to pull the trigger instead at the behest of a stranger who she recommends it to her and who she has no reason to trust.

I'm gonna forego what most everyone has been on about and just ask the simple question:

Is BioWare satisfied with what they've created?

If the answer is yes, then by all means, don't change the ending no matter how hard we complain. Leave us to our devices of creating our own little realities, and move on to your next project. Heck, you'll probably be better for it with a lack of rabid fanboys gnawing at your heels all the way.

All that said, there's a very real possibility that they're not satisfied with the ending they created. If statements are to be believed, then the content of the ending was still in contention around November of this past year, and they had built up one particular type of ending before scrapping it in favor of this new one.

Honestly, it does seem to me that BW's eyes were bigger than their stomachs for this project, and that, despite their lofty goals for a myriad branching story, they were forced to face the very real problems of time, money, and manpower, and had to consolidate things. I mean, it's obvious in ME3. For just one example, the destruction or preservation of the Collector Base, while played up to be a big decision in ME2, pretty much boils down to little more than which War Asset you get near the end of ME3. That obviously speaks of a thread that had to be cut short for one reason or another.

So, to my original point. If BW isn't happy with the ending they've given us and just kinda hoped we'd be happy and would just leave them alone, then obviously that has backfired. They should consider this an opportunity, not an obligation, to reassess what they wanted to say with this series. If it leads to a new ending, it should still be on their terms. Don't let any of the fans do any writing for you.

Sadly, given how they're still in a business (and at the mercy of a rather notorious parent company), I don't see this happening despite the desires of the dev team or the fanbase. I'll be interested to see how they plan to handle all this at PAX next week.

Disclaimer: I've never played any Mass Effect game. I have played nearly every other Bioware game, so I feel like if I squint and picture my PC and his/her companions in shiny spacesuits with different skin colors or headbumps, I sort of have played it, but I realize that probably really doesn't count.

Anyway: as a semi-detached bystander, my view of the situation is this:

Bioware has a reputation for making games with in-depth stories where the choices you make matter and affect the ending. Most Bioware games have endings that change depending on how you play it. They have firmly planted in the minds of their fans that their choices matter. So if you suddenly, after years and years and years of establishing this reputation, in an already established series that has also reinforced this idea, decide not to do it like this anymore, it is at the very least very jarring. At most, it's a very poor design decision to throw at a loyal fanbase without warning--and may sever the fanbase in the long run for little reason.

That said, as much as I like the mutable ending idea to a degree, I agree with Yahtzee that it can be frustrating to not have a canon ending to some games. In part, because it takes away a sense of closure, and you never feel like your end "counted." In part, because if the game with the mutable endings ends up having a sequel, the developers then have to pick the "right" ending to carry on from. Suddenly one kind of ending became canon, and if your game ended differently--again, it doesn't count.

I can kind of see the idea of if you want to end a franchise, such as Mass Effect, you might want a non-mutable ending so no one bickers about what "canon" was. But a) gamers will bicker no matter what you do, and b) a solid ending in a mutable, your-choices-matter story is in itself inconsistent. Maybe if Bioware wants to take a route where stories have more solid endings in future, that's a really good idea--they just shouldn't have started with Mass Effect 3.

And THAT said, I agree with the article that changing the ending officially could set a bad precedent -- especially since we as gamers will whine about everything we don't like to the point we will make up something not to like if something is perfect; we suffer from massive cases of "unpleasable fanbase" on a regular basis.

On the other hand to THAT, though, there are actually existing precedents to changing endings. Fallout 3 comes to mind. The original ending to Fallout 3 handwaved past some major plot/logic holes to force your character to make a noble sacrifice (maybe this sounds familiar). Or to force a specific NPC to make a noble sacrifice. But the game itself had established possibilities for reasonable alternatives. When enough players vociferously pointed this out, Bethesda changed the ending to the original game when it published one of its DLC add-ons.

So this HAS already happened. And Bethesda specifically established a precedent of "we'll fix this when the DLC comes out" (though I think they patched the original game at the same time). Still this leads to...

A sinister thought--could this even have been planned? Would the possible new ending be a patch, OR do you only get the new ending if you buy DLC? EA LOVES to nickel and dime its customers with downloadable content (one of the reasons I in fact stopped buying Bioware games). Is it possible they're testing and seeing customer response--don't like the ending? How much are you willing to pay for a new one? Are you willing to pay for other added choices as well?

I hope that last thought is a bit extreme. But it will be interesting to see, if Bioware does rewrite the ending, what form of the delivery of that ending will take.

TsunamiWombat:
Point. Missing it. Thanks for not understanding, Yahtzee.

Holding the Line.

I am in complete agreement. He missed the point, as did Moviebob, Ken Levine, etc. etc. etc.

Hold the line.

First of all, allegedly the ending was essentially taken out of the writers' hands, so it'd be hard to argue that it's breaking 'artistic vision' to change it when the 'artists' didn't do it to begin with. (http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/)

As for my views on the subject...I LIKED the ending, personally (or my variation of it, at least). And I actually liked the whole final 15 minutes that people complain about...plot inconsistencies aside. Although I did kinda have it in my mind that indoctrination was a possibility, which somewhat guided my final choice, even before the whole 'Indoctrination Theory' thing popped up and went very detailed on the matter.

I just hated how linear and dismissive the whole thing was that lead up to/followed it. Characters that were proclaimed dead showed up again, because the game made assumptions about my squad choices. But more importantly, all the alliances and relationships I forged never came into play. A unified galaxy, and all I get to see is humans fighting on Earth? I command unheard-of alliances, and I get no choice or even word of what happens to them? Mass Effect 2 did it right with the way it handled the final mission, and that had to deal with having a follow-up. I was horribly disappointed that I got nothing in the way of choice or resolution from the point where it would have been easiest and most logical to include it.

Anyway, my point: I agree with Yahtzee's overall conclusion, and that of most critics. The ending shouldn't be changed, in my eyes. The ending arc though absolutely should be amended. Be it through DLC or patch, there's way too much left untouched and unexplained after all the buildup. It just screams of being trimmed down to the bones to keep things neat, but it needs to have the muscle built back on, not have the bones broken and put back together.

Inconsistant opinions!

>Rips Deus Ex: HR (a generally linear, self contained game) a new one for halving a 'pick ur fate' style ending.

>Praises Mass Effect 3 (a game from a series renound for featureing choices with real outcomes) for doing the same thing only worse. Is the idea that you're proud Bioware was brave enough to completly screw up their game?

It's almost as if Yahtzee likes to alternate his viewpoints specifically to contrast with popular opinion and draw attention to himself.

For me the entire story of Mass Effect 3 was based on the "Together we stand, divided we fall" mindset in uniting the Galaxy against a common foe. When I reached the end I was expecting all the time I had spent gathering allies, forming alliances, and ending the infighting to pay off but instead, no matter what you do most people die, the survivors are stranded and the Galaxy is propelled into an intergalactic dark age (That's what I expect would logically happen anyway).

It's not just an ending that fails to consider your actions throughout the series, it's an ending which destroys the value of those actions entirely. "Did you help the Quarians get home?" It doesn't matter because most of the migrant fleet will never see that place again. "Did you make peace between the Turians and Krogan?" To bad they'll never see each other again.

I can understand if someone wants bring a story to a bleak and nihilistic end in some cases but if a story's main aim is to tell you "nothing matters, life's harsh" then spreading it over three 40+ hour games across five years is just sadistic

Wow.
Just, wow. I don't get what all the controversy is about. A game isn't a static piece of "art" that shouldn't be changed, it's dynamic (imagine if all games were to remain unchanged after release; no patches, no mods, hell, you could even go to extremes and argue that changing the graphics or audio settings would count as changing the game).
My problem (and apparently many other peoples') is the combination of everything; the promises BioWare/EA made (and then broke), the choices we made throughout the game (which eventually amount to nothing), the ending that lacked any explanation and felt like it was pulled from an entirely different game, the time and money we've invested into the game(s),..., all of this (and more) gives us every reason to be pissed off and demand something be done.
Now I don't know if that something will be explainers, a new ending or if it's just a PR stunt to shut us up, but I actually hope that they change it. It's not because I want a new ending (I'd be happy with explainers but for every single subplot I followed), but because it might make the gaming industry think twice before screwing us over in the future. And make no mistake, whether you support the current ending or not, we got screwed over. Hard.

Two stoner nerds talking to each other:

"Dude... like, what was the name of that sci-fi thing we saw a little while ago?"

"Huh? I dunno. Can you remember what happened in it?

"...Yeah. It,like, started out all kind of realistic, and hard-sci fi, right? And there was this mysterious threat facing humanity that this *toke* specialist team was trying to investigate, yeah? And then, at the end, everyone dies, and shit gets real trippy brah! Real fuckin' trippy! And it was, like, supposed to be real deep, but was obviously cobbled together when they ran out of time and money. You know what I'm talking about?

"Erm... you mean Mass Effect, man?"

"Naw dude, I just remembered! It was fuckin' Kubrick, man! 2001: A Space Odyssey!"

I know comparisons between 2001 and ME3 have already been made, but I feel there's something that's worth pointing out here. Love it or hate it, the ending of 2001 has provoked decades worth of debate among fans of sci-fi, and is still remembered as one of the most iconic parts of an iconic movie. Some people see it as a symbolic ending to a revolutionary bit of sci-fi. Others see it as the obviously hashed together ending of a film that was already $4.5 million over budget. The point is that, love it or hate it, the ending to 2001 has become a key part of sci-fi culture, and one of the most readily identifiable elements of the film.

If the internet had existed back in the 60s, the ending to 2001 wouldn't have lasted more than a month. Back then, loads of people were confused, annoyed, or even downright angry with the way the film ended. But because making films back then required very little input from the audience, there was nothing they could do to alter it. If the internet had been around, you can damn well bet that millions of sci-fi fans would have used it to petition Kubrick to make a less crappy, pretentious ending, and to end the film in a real way. And one of the greatest legacies of one of the most important works of science-fiction would have been chucked out in the rubbish, simply to serve the needs of an irate fanbase.

This isn't trying to defend Mass Effect 3's ending. I haven't played the game, but what I've seen of the ending looks truly atrocious. The thing is, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Not every film, game or novel is going to have a great ending. There will always be great stories which finish on a massive drop in quality. That's the risk you take when you get emotionally involved in a story and its characters. There's always the chance that the writer will take a left turn over a cliff and drive the story into the rocks. I'm speaking as a fan of The Dark Tower series. I know how much shitty endings hurt.

But as bad as shitty endings are, the alternative is much worse. I do not want to see an industry where pick-and-mix endings are the norm, based on which section of the fanbase is screaming the loudest. Even Mass Effect 3's ending has its defenders. If Bioware makes a new ending, does that mean those fans are wrong, despite their ending being the original one? More importantly, I do not want to see an industry where developers are rewarded for shoddy work by being given second and third chances to make the endings right, while gamers are charged for the privilege. That simply sends the message to publishers that focusing on a good ending isn't important, as we'll gladly pay extra for a real ending after the game has shipped.

Mass Effect 3 dropped the ball at the end. Big time. But it is not the first game to have a crap ending. Better to leave it as an example of how not to end a gaming trilogy, than to allow it to set an uneasy precedent in the industry. I know there are gamers who have invested hundreds of hours into the series and really want to see a good ending, but that to me speaks more of the addictive personalities of large chunks of the gaming population than it does about the need to re-write the terms of the artist/audience divide. At the end of the day, Mass Effect is a work of fiction. If you are completely, utterly unable to get over the fact that it had a shit ending, then perhaps that says more about the priorities you have in your life than it does about how bad an ending is.

To paraphrase a quote from Alan Moore: "It is not the job of the artist to give the audience what they want. The audience doesn't know what they want. If they did, they wouldn't be the audience. They would be the artist."

In general, I agree that writers should be free to determine how their stories end, regardless of reader reaction - of course, this comes with the caveat that readers are just as free to criticize perceived failures.

The problem with the Mass Effect 3 ending _specifically_ is that, of the three choices given to the player, two have already been invalidated by the games themselves, because they're associated with antagonists you've already defeated. If you choose Control, you're basically proving the Illusive Man right (this after spending a good five minutes arguing with him), whereas if you choose Synthesis, you're justifying everything Saren did in the first game, since that's what _he_ wanted too.

It's not the linearity of the ending that's frustrating people, it's that the ending itself offers no closure, no resolution, no specific details of the sort you'd expect from a BioWare game. Were there still millions of people on the Citadel when it exploded? The Council? All those refugees? Your former squadmates? How do characters in one location suddenly end up in another? How does that "magical space laser" do what it does? Granted, these are all relatively minor elements in the overall narrative, but for a series which has prided itself on attention to plot details, their omission here _is_ glaringly obvious.

(Wrong comment section)

tautologico:

TsunamiWombat:
Point. Missing it. Thanks for not understanding, Yahtzee.

Holding the Line.

soren7550:
I'm surprised that Yahtzee is both missing the point and isn't up in arms over the ending. For someone that has emphasized in the past how games should have good writing and that BioWare was one of the few developers that understood this, he really seems to not get it.

You guys are sure it's Yahtzee (and MovieBob, and Devin Faraci, and Ben Kuchera from PA Report and every other journalist that has said similar things recently) that's missing the point, and not yourselves?

Saying that games should have good writing doesn't mean we should pressure a company to change a game's ending that is perceived as bad. Even excellent writers do write bad books sometimes. But there's a certain level of respect for what the author has done, even if it's bad, that no one starts demanding they change something. Demanding changes is not respecting the writing, good or bad.

Thank you. You get it. Authors make mistakes and execute things poorly sometimes. It doesn't mean the ending was "wrong" or that people should be this upset. Shit happens. Writers screw up. But turning things over to the audience sets an awful precedent far worse than this ending

Why is it that every video game journalist is missing the fact that Bioware ended the game like that because they didn't have the time to actually finish it? And that's before we go into the plot holes introduced in the last 10 minutes. They fucked us over. Simple as that.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Someone doesn't agree with me.

Nearly all of my teammates survived. Also, your choices were limited at the end based on what you did (and readiness level) during the rest of the game. So the idea that nothing you did up to that point mattered is nonsense - it mattered as much as the actions of an individual or small group could matter. I think a big part of the ending was to get the point across that some things are simply TOO BIG for your actions to make any real difference:

It's a big wide universe out there, and you aren't even a blip on its radar. There is no god, no purpose, no reason for any of it. Life is an accident of chemistry. What is just is. If we want to survive, we have to find a way - we might even have to evolve beyond our dearly-held paradigms regarding what life is. And if we don't survive? Doesn't ultimately matter.

This is the message I took away. (You don't have to agree with it, but that's the point I got from the ending.)

As far as endings coming out of left field - I wonder ... has anyone else ever read any hard science fiction? Or watched any science fiction not related to Star Wars, or Star Trek? Science fiction stories very often end on a "Wait ... WTF?" kind of note. Anyone ever see 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or read any Asimov? Bradbury?

Sure, there were a few minor things that irked me about the ending, but it certainly didn't come as some kind of devastating shock. And I most certainly don't think BioWare should go all "Neville Chamberlain" on their fan base.

Nimcha:
Some good points there.

None of which will matter one iota since at this point everybody's so buried in their trenches nothing can get them out of it. It's just angry fanboys yelling at each other.

I hope it'll pass soon. Maybe then we can get back to discussing how many amazing things are in this game.

I have to agree, Nimcha. While I appreciate the "polarization" as Casey Hudson put it this ending has brought upon the gaming community, that polarization being venomous debate bordering on cyber rioting, I think it is about time we all got the hell over it.

As a matter of fact, I would say that as soon as the next big release arrives at our doorsteps, presumably Diablo 3, everyone will suddenly stop giving a shit because they are no longer bored and uninvested in something.

The hardcore fanbase will continue to stew over it, because that's essentially all they know how to do since Dragon Age 2, but they better not insult my intelligence by saying they won't be buying Biowares next game on day one.

tautologico:
I think I'm much more into Mass Effect than Yahtzee, but I still don't think the ending is a heinous crime against humanity.

The general idea of the ending makes sense in the setting, although it was badly executed. It's another game/trilogy with a kinda-bad, rushed ending, not the end of the world.

I agree. The ending built and built from the beginning of the the game, each mission re-opening or closing doors presented earlier in the series, but the last "choose red, green, or blue," and then what happened afterwords felt kinda rushed. The rest felt like it was stylistic story-telling. I found pretty much everything that happened up until that point previously telegraphed.

The crime was not that the ending was bad. (Giving an alien intelligence motivations that don't really make sense to us works for me.) The problem was that it broke conventions established in the rest of the game. The last scenes involve running and dodging for your live and then listening to an alien AI, and then chatting with our nemesis for a bit. I don't have a problem with that, but generally in video games people expect a challenge, like a boss fight, to help bring about final conflict resolution.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here